Forums → WEPR → United States with Capitalism
| 69 | 26974 |
Our government is getting very greedy. They just take, take, take, spend, spend, spend. "Hey Joe, you go work hard, make money, but I'll take some of it, because Tim doesn't want to work. And I'll take some of it and buy some weapons." i just think it's totally wrong, and unnecessary. So I was thinking of a good alternative. Capitalism seems like the safest bet. If you want somebody to find your stolen purse, who would work harder? A police station trying to protect their reputation so they would make more business, or a police station who just wants to get back to their workout equipment, and are getting paid anyway? If you want to fund some sort of movement, go ahead, you shouldn't be FORCED to in this so called "free country." I just don't see the downside. If you lose ur job, then it'll still be easier to live because you won't have to pay taxes and you're not taking money from other hard workers. (If you don't want bills, then don't use the appliances or such) I mean, it just seems like the right way to live, where YOU are in charge of your own life. Why should these guys get to have authority over you?
- 69 Replies
Waiting happens in both systems. Get me some data on how long those waiting periods are in socialized healthcare systems if you think it's that huge a problem that it entirely invalidates the entire concept.
I have to watch another vid on systems around the world (Japan, Switzerland, Germany, UK, Taiwan). I'll post a relevant part of the transcript:
REID: I visited Dr. Christina von Koekritz, a family doctor practicing in the small town of Kladow, south of Berlin. If I call your office and say, "Oh, my shoulder kind of hurts, I'm not sure what's wrong," how long would it take me to see you?
--One or two weeks. If it's serious, same day.
REID: Serious, same day. If I come in here and you look at my shoulder and say, "Well, I think maybe an orthopedic specialist should look at it," then how long would I have wait to see the...
--It's different. Perhaps another week or two.
REID: Yeah.
--Yes.
REID: What if the orthopedic specialist said, "Well, we have to operate on your shoulder"? Do you know how long I would have to wait for that?
--Not too long. Three weeks?
REID: Three weeks before I could get in?
--I guess.
>> REID: That's about the same waiting time as the U.S. It's faster than Britain, but not as quick as Japan would be. To finance health care, Germans pay premiums based on income to one of 240 private insurers. They call them "sickness funds." A worker earning $60,000 would split a $750 monthly family premium with her employer. It's more expensive than Japan and the UK, but still a bargain by U.S. standards, about two- thirds of ours.
In a system where all prices are paid beforehand with a tax, everyone working in the medical field is already compensated.
Who said anything about the government paying for them to go to college, or padding their paychecks? They would be working -for- the government.
The tax payers have to pay, therefore healthcare isn't any cheaper what-so-ever. In fact, it's more expensive because everyone pays more in taxes.
And do you know why that happens? Because doctors/hospitals know the insurance companies will be paying that and recommend a procedure that wasn't necessary. It's how they make their money. They can jack the price up because of that, which in turn causes the insurance companies to demand more from their customers. You've got the cycle reversed.
No, I don't have the cycle reversed. What you said is true as well. It's another example of how 3rd party providers fail when you hamper competition. That's what we see in the U.S. People rarely shop around for their preferred health insurance, they usually accept whatever it is their employer is paying. The employer often obtains whichever insurance is best for their business, not for their customers.
Imagine if car insurance companies allotted you a specific number of gallons per week based on your car's mileage that came included with the plan. People would start driving more conservatively to stay within that limit, or conversely make better decisions on what car to purchase for their needs. They wouldn't waste gas, because their paid-for amount in the insurance plan wouldn't cover them afterwards.
The entire example is really a red herring, though, and an exercise in futility. You can throw up hypotheticals fitting what you want them to be all you want.
My example was not a red herring what-so-ever. It's to demonstrate a natural process of "oh, I might as well take what I can since I'm not paying." This is the purpose of analogies, not to be used as evidence but to help paint a clearer picture.
Suppose car insurance companies do set a limit to the amount of gasoline people can buy per week, what then? People are going to limit themselves only by how much their insurance limits them. You're only partially right, in that you underestimate how much people will take advantage of the system. Even with limitations, people will try to squeeze everything they can out of insurance companies.
If insurance companies said, "We'll pay for 10 gallons a week", those who don't need 10 gallons will buy more, and those who need more than 10 gallons will end up paying for other people's fuel. It's best that everyone pays for their own gasoline - or, that they get a choice as to whether or not they want to become part of such a system.
The problem with this system is that people don't really have a choice about who their health care provider is. Most people obtain their health insurance through their work, because they can't otherwise. Because of this, people are at the mercy of their employers choice in insurance company, and at the insurance companies wanting to profit. The company might not give their employees an adequate plan, because they have to pay for it.
Employers pay for health insurance because there was a time when the government capped the maximum wage people could earn. Because of this, employers started offering insurance as a means of encouraging production since raises were out of the question. This is how employer provided healthcare began.
I'm not defending the current system. I understand it's flawed. It does need changed. However, national healthcare is even worse.
Like ****ing hell it is. Blame the victim, sure. It's their fault they got sick and might die.
I never blamed the victim for anything.
It has to do with responsibility.
Suppose Tom gets cancer. He shouldn't have to bear the costs of the treatments, it's not his fault he has cancer.
The solution? Take money from everyone else to pay for Tom's treatment.
How is this any more fair? You say Tom isn't responsible, so he shouldn't have to pay. But what about the tax payers? Why are they suddenly responsible? It's not their fault Tom got cancer either.
If we can trace a problem to its source, and that source can compensate for the issue they have caused - great! But some issues are traced back to acts of nature or unfortunate events.
No, the problem with the capitalist system is that medical treatment is a good you have to buy. There's no control at all, because they've got a monopoly on your health. They know you need treatment, and you either have to pay it or suffer. It's literally extortion.
Pardon, we're talking about capitalism. Not corporatism.
In a capitalist system, there's competition. Economics 101.
Do you know what we call medical practices most often not covered by insurance? Cheap. Why? Because people look for the cheapest, most efficient, operations.
Our system isn't this shining thing that's working. It's a pile of capitalistic ideals gone wrong that extorts money
Let me stop you right there.
You see the problems of a corporatist America in which capitalism has been hampered. I'll admit that I still lack understanding of the health care scenario, but I do recognize that the problem stems from 3rd party systems.
You blame insurance companies, yet you don't see how socialized healthcare works the same way and has the EXACT SAME problems.
It doesn't work that way. Take a look at our healthcare. Take a look at healthcare in the rest of the developed world. Look at the general state of things. You don't see them arguing so much about healthcare.
It's because they don't see, first hand, the negative effects of socialized health care. When the health care system fails to turn a profit, who notices? Nobody. The government takes more money from people's taxes, and when people complain about their tax rates going up, do they know why their taxes went up? No. They don't.
When you pay for healthcare through you taxes, you don't know what you're paying for exactly or even how the cost was determined. In a capitalist system, you know what your bill is and the amount of money that needs to be paid to pay off that debt.
Capitalism is a system where trade is simplified and we can easily observe price burden. Socialism, on the other hand, creates a giant pot and mixes everyone's bills together, so it's hard to figure out where improvements are needed. In a capitalist society, you can compare cheap medial procedures and expensive medical procedures and figure out which procedures need work on. In a socialist society, there is no distinction between the two - both expensive and cheap procedures are treated the same.
You blame insurance companies, yet you don't see how socialized healthcare works the same way and has the EXACT SAME problems.
Except it doesn't. And we have examples in every other developed country in the world of it working. Their healthcare is universal, the costs are cheaper, and the waiting time is basically the same. The care is just as good, and they're not getting reamed up the rear end trying to pay for life saving/altering medical treatment.
When the health care system fails to turn a profit, who notices? Nobody.
You know what? I don't care if the health care system is profiting. Sure, it'd be nice if it were, but I'd much rather not have people dying and suffering because they couldn't afford treatment.
Capitalism is a system where trade is simplified and we can easily observe price burden. Socialism, on the other hand, creates a giant pot and mixes everyone's bills together, so it's hard to figure out where improvements are needed. In a capitalist society, you can compare cheap medial procedures and expensive medical procedures and figure out which procedures need work on. In a socialist society, there is no distinction between the two - both expensive and cheap procedures are treated the same.
Yeah, sure. Except capitalism doesn't work for healthcare, because it's a necessary good that everyone must have. That's my point. What we have does not work. What we have was based on capitalism and turned into a terrible thing. I don't care what system is used, so long as it works. And ours doesn't, and a socialistic system obviously does, which we only need to look to everywhere else to see.
Suppose Tom gets cancer. He shouldn't have to bear the costs of the treatments, it's not his fault he has cancer.
The solution? Take money from everyone else to pay for Tom's treatment.
The solution? With everyone paying under an umbrella, Tom's treatment is already paid for by himself because of his contribution. He's already paying for healthcare, and is simply using it when he needs it.
Why are you so fixated on "taking money from everyone else?" That's not what is happening. Do you think it's taking money from everyone else under the insurance company when someone gets sick and gets what they paid for? They sure as hell didn't pay in 120k in premiums. Where is the difference? Or are you just seeing the word "socialism" and going completely insane with paranoia and not applying any sort of thought to the matter? Because that's what it looks like to me.
*I'll address the other parts later. Have to leave soon and don't have the time.
Tom's treatment is already paid for by himself because of his contribution.
Unless he's too poor, then it's completely subsidized.
Everybody has different opinions, why does yours have to be right?
Then again...economics is hardly opinion. More how one looks at numbers and interprets information for different time sets and economic basis of a country.
The United States has the most expensive healthcare in the world, and is ranked at 38th.
About that
No they're not, they're starting the trouble.
No they aren't. They are trying to cease the troubles. We are in the lose-lose situation of "Everyone hates us if we do nothing" and "everyone hates us if we do something". We get pressured into situations (i.e. Syria) yes the moment we take action, we become villains who put our feet into everyone's business.
No, the problem with the capitalist system is that medical treatment is a good you have to buy. There's no control at all, because they've got a monopoly on your health. They know you need treatment, and you either have to pay it or suffer. It's literally extortion.
An interesting point for this would be the time period after Katrina when certain business hiked up their prices for items that had became necessities for those affected by the hurricane. Became an issue of "idea of free market" vs. "moral 'obligations'".
Just found out today, when all employees are forced to obtain healthcare, I'll have to actually start paying for half my health insurance.
My employer can't afford to cover themselves and their employees healthcare, and she'll be forced to cover herself. So, to make sure we don't go out of business or lay people off, we'll have to start paying for half our health care.
An interesting point for this would be the time period after Katrina when certain business hiked up their prices for items that had became necessities for those affected by the hurricane. Became an issue of "idea of free market" vs. "moral 'obligations'".
Prices went up because demand went down.
If we kept prices artificially low, do you know what would have happened? The limited supply of goods would have run out. Thanks to the price hikes, people couldn't buy as many goods in such large quantities, keeping the limited supply from running out so quickly.
Oh, moral obligation? Keep prices low so supply runs out faster and less people have access to goods? Mmmmmm, tastes like... not morality.
But, hey, you can't talk moral obligations while you ignore people who went out of their way to make moral obligations. Just because businesses didn't give all their products away to the first batch of people for free so no one else could acquire the goods doesn't mean everyone else didn't do their part as well. You're ignoring all the charities and volunteer work.
You know what? I don't care if the health care system is profiting. Sure, it'd be nice if it were, but I'd much rather not have people dying and suffering because they couldn't afford treatment.
And I'd much rather people be able to afford happiness for themselves in their family so life is worth living in the first place.
Except capitalism doesn't work for healthcare, because it's a necessary good that everyone must have.
Just like food and clothing! That explains why the government controls our... oh... it's mostly left to the free market? Do'h!
Whether someone "needs" something or "wants" something can effect prices in situations where monopolies are had. But in healthcare, needs do not magic away competition. Government regulations harm competition.
What we have does not work. What we have was based on capitalism and turned into a terrible thing.
Your right, what we have does not work. But it wasn't capitalism that failed, the problems stem from government regulation and control over healthcare and pay rates. Just because something failed in a system that was once capitalist, doesn't mean capitalism is the cause of the problems. You have to look at why insurance in America fails, and NONE OF IT has to do with free-market capitalism. It ALL has to do with government regulations on insurance. As I said before, it started when government tried to put a cap on how much money people can make. Now most people are insured from their employers. If people picked their own insurance and payed out of pocket, they would have incentive to save money. But since it's the employer paying for everyone's insurance, everybody accepts whatever their employer gives them. They rarely shop around because there's no benefit to doing so.
The solution? With everyone paying under an umbrella, Tom's treatment is already paid for by himself because of his contribution. He's already paying for healthcare, and is simply using it when he needs it.
If Tom payed for his own healthcare, then we wouldn't need to throw everyone into the pot.
Do you think it's taking money from everyone else under the insurance company when someone gets sick and gets what they paid for?
You don't have to buy insurance if you don't want to.
Or are you just seeing the word "socialism" and going completely insane with paranoia and not applying any sort of thought to the matter? Because that's what it looks like to me.
If there's something that only the government can provide, fine. But socialized health care is something I believe we should be allowed to opt out of at our own risk. I see no reason why we should be forced into this system.
But, hey, you can't talk moral obligations while you ignore people who went out of their way to make moral obligations. Just because businesses didn't give all their products away to the first batch of people for free so no one else could acquire the goods doesn't mean everyone else didn't do their part as well. You're ignoring all the charities and volunteer work.
Typical greedy Republican thinking!
Why can't the US have a similar system as Denmark?
http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_13261279
Of course they'll never do it because rich parasites always find loopholes in the system so they don't have to pay their fair share of taxes.
They'd rather give corrupted congress members outrageously high salaries + the money they get from crooked Insurance and pharmaceutical companies to pass bills that favors their greedy agendas!
Conservatives always wine about solutions to problems that touch others until they get hit by the same problem then, all of a sudden, they understand.
Remember the gay marriage issue?
Typical greedy Republican thinking!
Why can't the US have a similar system as Denmark?
http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_13261279
Of course they'll never do it because rich parasites always find loopholes in the system so they don't have to pay their fair share of taxes.
They'd rather give corrupted congress members outrageously high salaries + the money they get from crooked Insurance and pharmaceutical companies to pass bills that favors their greedy agendas!
Conservatives always wine about solutions to problems that touch others until they get hit by the same problem then, all of a sudden, they understand.
Remember the gay marriage issue?
1. I was never against gay marriage.
2. Republicans, who are often tax payers, can afford health care.
3. Why you believe I should be a slave to the sick and get literally nothing in return is beyond me. Sure, I'll get coverage too, OH WAIT, I can cover myself because I have a job.
If you want to help people, help them. Don't tell other people they have to help or be imprisoned, because that's lazy, irresponsible, and completely immoral.
If you want to help people, YOU help people. I'll help people when I can help them. I shouldn't be forced to live a ****ty life, paycheck to paycheck, because people want me to pay for their healthcare.
Again, I'm going to be forced to pay for half of my insurance thanks to Obamacare. This will COST me money. Not only will I have less money in my paycheck, but in the long run I'll have payed more money for my health insurance than any medical bill. Am I greedy? If I can't be happy with myself, then I see no reason why I should be forced to care for others.
Not once do I say, "let the sick just wither away" or anything related to that. I believe we can find ways to help the sick without forcing people to help.
When I'm sick, I'll be poor. Not because of high health care costs, but because I'll have saved nothing paying for my healthcare while I was healthy. It would be better for me to save my money and pay for my own costs, at least it would be in a truly free market healthcare system. What we have now is bad too, but it's bad because people got the government involved.
Just so that I'm clear, Obamacare puts small businesses into debt. Hmm, why do we hurt the middle class to take care of the poor?
It would be better for me to save my money and pay for my own costs, at least it would be in a truly free market healthcare system.
What about when something happens and the insurance company denies your filed claims and drops your coverage based on a bs 'reexisting condition'? You can't exactly save up a few million dollars these days.
What about when something happens and the insurance company denies your filed claims and drops your coverage based on a bs 'reexisting condition'? You can't exactly save up a few million dollars these days.
This is a false dichotomy.
A.) We get stuck with mountains of debt.
or
B.) We adopt socialized healthcare to avoid medical debts.
Why are these the only two options? Why not get rid of the actual problems plaguing American healthcare? That is to say, we encourage people to pay for their own healthcare rather than promoting employer based healthcare. We let insurance companies compete across boarders. We allow people to pick healthcare that fits them specifically so they may save money. We find ways in which hospitals become more competitive (such as encouraging people to look for he best medical service rather than picking the first one they see since they don't care about costs they won't pay due to 3rd party payer systems). We lighten up with the DEA and make it so drugs aren't too costly to develop and test.
Why are these the only two options? Why not get rid of the actual problems plaguing American healthcare? That is to say, we encourage people to pay for their own healthcare rather than promoting employer based healthcare. We let insurance companies compete across boarders. We allow people to pick healthcare that fits them specifically so they may save money. We find ways in which hospitals become more competitive (such as encouraging people to look for he best medical service rather than picking the first one they see since they don't care about costs they won't pay due to 3rd party payer systems). We lighten up with the DEA and make it so drugs aren't too costly to develop and test.
Did you even check the link about Denmark?
where it's says:
It's mainly cheap because it's a lot simpler to manage. There are no medical insurance companies or lawyers operating for profit, or financial background checks
and
Stronger state regulations ensure that the money pouring through the system ends up where it's supposed to: with doctors and health care providers.
The pharmaceutical industry still gets its fair share since medication is still bought on the free market. This rewards innovation.
If congressmen weren't so crooked and overpaid a similar system could be implemented and each States would supervise and make sure there are no abuses from any parties.
This is a false dichotomy.
B.) We adopt socialized healthcare to avoid medical debts.
Except I didn't say this was the only alternative, as many nations (like Japan) need to borrow from banks to cover the overall cost, then pay it off with other taxes.
You must be logged in to post a reply!